Here's another example of a pitiful, even semi-deranged 'shot' from sampleman:
"-- you need to go off in a corner with tpaine and come to grips with your assertion that majority rule canceling out fundamental rights is OK, as long as its a super-majority.
Where he comes up with the delusion that we are advocating that a super-majority can cancel out fundamental rights is simply beyond rational comprehension.
As we've seen, sampleman & crowd do indeed want a system where Congress [and States/cities] can simply pass any law that seems popular at the time, and leave it to the electorate to decide if it was 'right'.
-- Unable to rationally debate the constitutionality of this specific issue, they simply ignore any mention of it..
How about an answer Sampleman ? You haven't bothered to have one of those in the last dozen or so of your posts.
"-- Running away from the issue isn't a good sign for your argument's strength. --- How about being brave and making one? --"
Or is this your new 'style' -- where you include me in your 'tar baby' imaginings, then don't have the guts to ping me to debate the issues you raise?
-445-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SampleMan now writes:
I'm breaking a new rule of mine here, but you might as well know, I haven't read a single one of your last 40-60 posts.
I frankly don't get past reading that its from you before I skip it. This one was just an accident, as you were unusually brief. Your posts are a colossal waste of time. You don't answer questions, you don't add anything, you are just a one trick pony stuck on transmit, with an irritating character to boot. Like a broken record of Howard Dean. As I said before, I don't think you are a total kook like some, but neither do you have anything to offer. My time is too valuable to waste it posting to someone that is disingenuous, while continually questioning my integrity and true intent. You can safely call me a liar tucked behind your computer screen, but just because I can't invite you outside, doesn't mean that I have to dignify it. If you want to continue speaking to people that are ignoring you, try the bus stop. This is a courtesy reply, but consider it my last to you, and only by accident will I be reading any of your posts.
-- Fine s-man, feel free to claim you don't read my posts.
However, as long as you continue to post your mischaracterations of our constitutional process, - and asides of what I and others post about that process, -- those comments will be answered.
In fact, your aside above to tacticalogic proves that you read my posts.
-- As does your remark imagining I've called you a liar; -- that's simply not true..
In an earlier aside to TL you claimed, & I answered:
-- there are equally some real nut jobs arguing for legalization by any means. Should tpaine think that's a reference to him, its not.
Thanks for the faint praise, and for realizing that I am not making a personal attack on you either.
-- This debate on governmental prohibitional power ['states rights'] has been going on since the Constitution was ratified. -- In effect we fought a civil war about it -- Can you agree?
Now I find that you want to play a 'one way' game.. -- You get to make personal remarks about me, but claim to be above "wasting time" reading my responses. -
Bizarre ploy.
-- Feel free to imagine you're making some sort of a rational point.
This should surprise no one. But seriously, SampleMan, you should think about going back and reading them. You might learn something.
Good decision.